#吐槽In reply to nevent1q…p8cs_________________________SingleFile is suitable for almost all content-based web pages, while WACZ will only be used for pages that SingleFIle cannot fully archive, especially dynamic web pages (web applications) that will change the rendering data within the page with interaction. But if you can only choose one to suit all situations, then WACZ is the only choice. I used to build my own private web archive workflow and finally chose SingleFile as the main target archive format. WACZ is an alternative in extreme cases. In general, I do not think that web archives should allow readers to interact with web pages. If so, I will save multiple versions for multiple dynamic versions.via Nostr@cxplay

#吐槽

In reply to nevent1q…p8cs
_________________________

SingleFile is suitable for almost all content-based web pages, while WACZ will only be used for pages that SingleFIle cannot fully archive, especially dynamic web pages (web applications) that will change the rendering data within the page with interaction. But if you can only choose one to suit all situations, then WACZ is the only choice. I used to build my own private web archive workflow and finally chose SingleFile as the main target archive format. WACZ is an alternative in extreme cases. In general, I do not think that web archives should allow readers to interact with web pages. If so, I will save multiple versions for multiple dynamic versions.

via Nostr@cxplay

fiatjaf (npub180…jh6w6)

fiatjaf on Nostr (reply):

OK, makes sense, but it's always better to support a single standard than multiple. If you were to pick a single format to support for all web archives going forward forever, what would pick: WACZ or SingleFile HTML?